Loading...
Minutes P&Z 08/06/2009 TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 6, 2009 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trophy Club, Texas met on August 6, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 100 Municipal Drive, Trophy Club, and Texas 76262. COMMISSIONERS ATTENDANCE: Chairman Hill Present Vice Chairman Stephens Present Commissioner Reed Present Commissioner Sheridan Present Commissioner Forest Present Commissioner Ashby Present Commissioner Davidson Present STAFF AND GUESTS PRESENT: Carolyn Huggins Planning & Zoning Manager Chris King Building Inspector Danny Thomas Fire Chief Tom Rutledge Town Engineer (Teague, Nall & Perkins) CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCE A QUORUM. Chairman Hill called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. with a quorum present. 1 REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MAY 7, 2009 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. Commissioner Reed motioned to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2009, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Forest. Ayes: Hill, Reed, Sheridan, Forest, Ashby Nays: None Abstain: Stephens, Davidson (both absent at the May 7 meeting) Action: 5-0-2, Approved 2PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CHANGES TO THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 13-ZONING, ARTICLE V-SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 5.03-ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, AMENDING AND ADOPTING NEW REGULATONS AFFECTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (ADM-09-003) Chairman Hill announced the case and opened the public hearing. There was no one present wishing to speak and the public hearing was closed. 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CHANGES TO THE TOWN OF TROPHY CLUB CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 13-ZONING, ARTICLE V- SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SECTION 5.03-ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, AMENDING AND ADOPTING NEW REGULATONS AFFECTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (ADM- 09-003) Chairman Hill asked for a staff report. Ms. Huggins stated that this item is a request from staff to make a change to Section 5.03 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 5.03 deals with Accessory Structures. Some examples are a detached garage, a greenhouse, a home workshop, and a guest house, and, as currently written, the ordinance states that accessory structures shall not exceed one story in height, except for storage and utility structures which cannot exceed 8-ft. in height. Ms. Huggins stated that the problem that staff is having is determining what is the maximum height of one story? The ordinance as written doesn’t clarify that. She stated that recently a resident submitted a building permit application for a one story detached garage that is 25-ft. in height. It looks like a 2-story structure and easily could be converted to a two-story structure, but the applicant insists that it will be one story only, and inside the structure there is nothing between the floor to ceiling, so from the inside it appears to be one story. The look from the outside, however, and with a 25-ft. height the structure has a two story look. Without a “story” being defined in the ordinance, the application could not be denied and the structure is currently being built in the Town of Trophy Club. \[picture shown\] Ms. Huggins stated that staff requests a recommendation of approval to the Council for a change to Section 5.03 that will limit a “story” to 20-ft. in height for accessory structures. Ms. Huggins stated that the building inspector, Chris King, is available to provide additional information and answer questions. She also stated that as required by ordinance a public hearing notice was placed in the local newspaper. Chairman Hill stated that he has no additional questions.He asked the Commissioners for questions. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that it seems that someone wanting an accessory structure would want to match the roof pitch of the house. Will a 20-ft. height allow a homeowner to match his roof pitch? Chris King, Building Inspector, responded that there are variables, the width of the structure for instance, that might make it difficult to match a roof pitch. A standard detached garage is 22-ft. in width and that width would match just about every existing roof pitch depending on the height of the wall. If they wanted to go with a larger building or a higher height of wall, that would affect the roof pitch. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that the applicant, then, has to make a choice. If the roof matches then the wall height has to come down. Mr. King stated that some zoning districts have a maximum height of 40-ft. and staff is trying to steer clear of having one story accessory buildings as tall as the maximum height allowed in each zoning district. Mr. King stated that older neighborhoods in Trophy Club don’t have the steep pitched roofs that are being built in new neighborhoods. Also, in the newer neighborhoods there isn’t room for most of these types of accessory structures because the lots are already maxed out on lot coverage. Mr. King stated that lot coverage also caps accessory structures such as gazebos. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that if the applicant is willing to be flexible with the variables \[wall height, width of structure, etc.\] they could get close to matching their roof pitches. Mr. King responded, “I think so, yes sir.” Commissioner Sheridan asked if the structure meets the masonry requirements \[referring to the structure shown as an example to the P&Z members; this structure has received a building permit and is currently being built in the Town\]. Mr. King responded that it does meet the masonry requirements. The picture doesn’t show the other side elevations which provide the appropriate masonry to meet building code. Commissioner Sheridan asked if the IBC has a definition of a story. Mr. King responded that the definition in the building code states ‘from the floor surface of one area to the roof or ceiling next above’. Commissioner Sheridan stated that this building is then one story because it is one height inside. Commissioner Sheridan stated that the owner of this structure has the capability of putting a second floor in there and getting two eight foot plates. Mr. King responded affirmatively. Commissioner Sheridan asked if the frame could support an additional floor. Mr. King responded that the exterior walls must be load bearing to carry the rafters so it could support a second floor. Commissioner Sheridan commented that this existing building permit then, although one story when issued, is prepped to be two stories. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he would like to see maximum flexibility for the homeowner, but also maximum protection for neighbors. Commissioner Sheridan asked how a 20-ft. height was determined. Mr. King responded that he did a search on the standard height of detached garages that have been permitted in the past in Trophy Club. The average was 14-ft. to 19-ft. Mr. King then played with the wall heights and roof pitches to see what would be a good cap. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he is for a 20-ft. height limitation, but is concerned about the plate height of a wall. He asked the other Commissioners for discussion. Commissioner Ashby stated that Mr. Sheridan wishes to establish a maximum top of plate height of any exterior wall…\[can’t pick up on recorder remainder of Mr. Ashby’s comments\]. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he is thinking of accessory structures as other things besides a detached garage and he doesn’t want to regulate the world but would like to protect what the neighbor can build overlooking the fence. Commissioner Forest suggested considering having a relation between the height of the main structure and the accessory structure. He stated that he would like to give homeowners the right to build what they want to but by the same token there must be compliance so that the look is decent for the neighborhood. Commissioner Reed stated that 20-ft. sounds pretty good. He asked if the 20-ft. restricts what the wall height will be. Commissioner Sheridan responded, “not necessarily”. Commissioner Sheridan stated that a 20-ft. height would allow a 12-ft. or even 14-ft. wall height. Commissioner Reed asked if there is a problem with that. He stated that he understands the concern with what can be seen over the top of a fence, but he wondered if it matters what is in between the top of the fence and the maximum height of the structure. Commissioner Reed stated that he doesn’t think it really matters. “Just have the 20-ft. and that’s as tall as anything is going to be next door to you. It might be 8-ft. high walls or 12-ft. high walls but the whole thing isn’t going to be taller than 20-ft.” Commissioner Sheridan stated, “I admit I’m not sure this is a valid concern.” He said he doesn’t mind a neighbor having a gazebo. “Pergolas are nice to see in the backyards.” He stated, “I’m concerned about a tall accessory building in the backyard.” Commissioner Reed stated that he believes Commissioner Sheridan’s question is a good one, but from his point of view the 20-ft. will limit and take care of what can be built. Commissioner Ashby stated that he agrees with Commissioner Reed that 20-ft. covers it. He doesn’t believe top of plate will be relevant in many of the cases. Commissioner Davidson agrees with the 20-ft. height. He stated that he has a neighbor with an extraordinarily steep roof and if the neighbor were to put in a detached garage, provided he had enough space to do so, it probably would exceed the 20-ft. mark even on a one car garage so limiting of the plate height may be something to consider for garage structures. \[Three or four commissioners make comments – not clear on recorder what is being said.\] Commissioner Sheridan asked how this affects RV storage, which is typically 14-ft. wide. The plate height would have to go to at least 12-ft. What would be the exterior look from a neighbor’s backyard? He stated that this is about protecting our neighborhood and community. The ordinance already protects corner lots and provides for living screens, so that leaves protecting the interior-type community. Commissioner Davidson stated that there are square footage limitations for accessory structures. RV storage requires at least a 12:6 plate. There will also be a length issue of approximately 30-ft. How many lots will have room for that type of structure? He stated that he doesn’t think there are that many. Commissioner Ashby stated that there aren’t that many RV’s stored in town. Commissioner Davidson stated that there are a couple of individuals in his neighborhood that have motor homes of that size and they store them off site because they wouldn’t fit on any of these lots. So he believes there is a plate height concern, and a total square footage concern that goes with that. He stated that if the example that was shown was put up across the street from his residence it would look downright silly. The house across the street is a beautiful home with extremely steep pitched roofs and then to have that (the example shown) would be an eyesore. Commissioner Davidson stated that he doesn’t think they can mandate that the roof pitch of the house and the accessory structure have to match. That seems to be going a bit overboard, but he believes it can be handled through other tweaks that limit that kind of action. Commissioner Sheridan added that the resident can always come in and ask for a variance if he needs 21-ft. versus 20-ft., for instance. Ms. Huggins stated that the Town’s ordinances are specific as to the types of accessory structures allowed in Trophy Club. The allowed structures are listed on page 13 of the Commissioner’s packet. She stated that recreational vehicles are governed by Chapter 5- General Land Use of the Code of Ordinances and it states that a recreational vehicle must be in a fully enclosed structure – an enclosed building with four walls and a roof which is constructed of material allowed for accessory structures. Chris King stated that there are not many RV structures in the Town of Trophy Club. He stated that when they come in for a permit and the calculation is done of the lot size and lot coverage most exceed the allowed lot coverage and cannot be built. Commissioner Sheridan stated that he believes his original question might be a moot point and he withdraws it. He supports the 20-ft. height. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he supports the 20-ft. and he believes there is a way to put an RV in a building that has a 10-ft. plate line and build the rafters inside and raise the door up above the plate line but he believes lot coverage precludes building something for a greyhound bus type motor home. Commissioner Forest asked if there is any ordinance against a flat roof. Ms. Huggins and Mr. King responded that there is not. Commissioner Forest stated that there is the possibility then of building a 20-ft. one story building with a flat roof. There was no further discussion. Commissioner Sheridan made a motion recommending approval of a 20-ft. maximum height of one story for accessory structures. Commissioner Reed seconded the motion. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Sheridan, Forest, Ashby, Davidson Nays: None Action: 7-0, Approved 4DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING A REQUEST FROM FIRE CHIEF DANNY THOMAS ON BEHALF OF MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 TO APPROVE A FINAL PLAT OF LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 1, MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 COMPLEX (5.400 ACRES) LOCATED AT 100 MUNICIPAL DRIVE (FP-09-030) Chairman Hill announced the item and asked for a staff report. Ms. Huggins stated that this is a request for a final plat for this property – the property located at 100 Municipal Dr. Construction of buildings on this property began before the Town was incorporated; therefore, the property was never platted. In anticipation of a new fire station being built on this property in the near future, the owners, Municipal Utility District No. 1, request plat approval. Staff is requesting a short form plat. A short form plat allows the preliminary plat and final plat to be combined together into one “final plat” document. A short form plat must adhere to specific guidelines and those items are listed on page 23 of the P&Z packet, along with an explanation of how this plat meets each of those requirements. This plat conforms to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance and, as previously stated, it meets the conditions and requirements to qualify as a short form plat. Staff requests a recommendation of approval to the Town Council. Ms. Huggins stated that Tom Rutledge, Town Engineer, created this plat for P&Z consideration and he is here this evening to provide additional information or answer questions. She stated that Fire Chief Thomas, representing the owner, Municipal Utility District No. 1, is also present and available to answer questions. Chairman Hill asked Mr. Rutledge for any comments. Mr. Rutledge had none but stated that he is available to answer any questions from the Commissioners. Chairman Hill, noting that there were two audience members present, asked if anyone had signed up to ask questions, although this item is not a public hearing. Ms. Huggins responded that she had no requests. Chairman Hill called for discussion or questions. Vice Chairman Stephens stated that he is not going to argue with Tom or Danny. Commissioner Sheridan had some questions regarding the verbiage of the Owner’s Certificate on the plat. He had provided those questions to Tom Rutledge prior to the meeting. Mr. Rutledge stated that all were good comments but none of the items in the Owners Certificate were critical things. He explained that Owners Certificates can be very broad to very specific, but the plat itself, showing the boundary information describes what is going on. Mr. Rutledge and Commissioner Sheridan discussed the wording in a little bit of detail with Mr. Rutledge agreeing to change some items and Commissioner Sheridan agreeing to leave some wording as is. Another question Commissioner Sheridan had raised was including utility easements on this plat. Mr. Rutledge explained that in creating this plat it is a unique situation in that all of the facilities currently exist. The MUD, a public entity, owns the property. To accurately identify every utility on this piece of property and place an easement on top of it would be extremely expensive and arduous. The question became what would be gained by going to that expense? Why survey and locate every utility line and try to put an easement on top of it, when this property, being owned by a public entity, is already reserved for the use of the public. The easement guarantees the right to go in and maintain those utilities. A public entity isn’t going to be restricted from maintaining the utilities because it’s already owned by the public entity. This plat is self-serving in that sense and thus unique. Commissioner Sheridan stated that the magic words are “extra cost”… Mr. Rutledge responded that he doesn’t believe anything is lost by not identifying utilities and providing easements on this plat. Commissioner Forest, Reed and Davidson had no comments. Commissioner Ashby commented that the municipal plat appropriately fits the Town of Trophy Club as it is shaped like a golf club head. Mr. Rutledge responded that it’s a 3-wood. Commissioner Ashby made a motion recommending approval of the final plat of Municipal Utility District No. 1 Complex. Commissioner Davidson seconded the motion. Ayes: Hill, Stephens, Reed, Sheridan, Forest, Ashby, Davidson Nays: None Action: 7-0, Approved ADJOURNMENT Chairman Hill adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m.